Rental housing inventories - more

I wrote about an issue with the No Net Loss (NNL) policy where it seems the minimum number of rental units was set at 8,286 in 2002, the actual number of units rose to 10,125 in 2005, and fell to 6,383 in 2008. There seemed to have been a deletion of inventory never adequately explained in the 2008 Inventory Report.

Continuing with the rental theme - excluding home ownership units, I took a peek at the rentals above the NNL - that is, 61 % of MFI plus. If I were to chart the data, one will see the same inconsistencies in the two data sets, a decrease in one is not reflected by an increase in the other..

In general there is an increase in unit numbers from 2002 to 2005 but a significant reduction in 2008. Where did the units go? Just the methodology? Frankly, it is hard to believe that it is anything other than the counting.

A look at "Changes in Rental versus Ownership" page from the 2008 Report one sees an attempt at an explanation. But a page read doesn't instill any confidence in the Report. While it points out the possible loss of some units, it fails to explain the loss in the Downtown and Goose Hollow areas. E. g. between 2005 and 2008 Downtown there was a loss of 2,845 units.

This chart [click on it] uses the data from Report page and adds in the data from the 2002 Report. That is not a dash in between the years in the left hand column - it is a minus sign. Thus, '08 - '05 is the 2008 stats minus the stats for 2005.

It is clear that even ignoring the Downtown data - ownership units outstrip rental units. That could be positive if the ownership units were affordable to the working class. More later.

Doesn't it follow that the city and PdC ought to know the why of depleted units? Since we are talking about numbers, not percentages of total units which can hide issues, only a drop out of the rental market or a conversion to ownership should explain the discrepancy.

But that doesn't seem likely given the magnitude of the difference. I still like the survey as the culprit. If one looks at the housing survey form sent to landlords/property owners for 2008 Report - it invites errors. A self reporting form doesn't seem like an appropriate method especially when housing policies are effected and affected by the results.

If there is any good news it is that, in general, more than half of the total rental units are units in the 0 to 60% MFI range. The bad news is the drop off in total units from that reported in 2005, e. g., 13,697 in 2005 and 11,764 in 2008..

But, the good news is tarnished though. If there were more and better paying jobs, workers could afford to live in the central city.

In the central city, the NNL (0 - 60% of MFI) units seems to have taken a significant hit, as well as any prospects for home ownership for the working class. Ownership affordability by MFI range shows that the bulk are in the 120% plus MFI range. [2008 Report].

However, if one assumes that a mortgage payment should not impose a cost burden of more than 30% of annual income - there are few homes in Portland that anyone making less than $100k maybe even $120 K, can afford.

Absent from the inventory count are shelters. The 2008 Report did have a page on year round shelter beds which were not counted as rental inventory. In the central city there are only 446 beds - far too few. Most of those are in Old Town with Central Eastside and Goose Hollow as the other two areas having shelter beds

And what is unclear is where the homeless moved off the streets via the city's 10 year plan to end homeless went. The city claims "successful outcomes in 2008:" 285 homeless families with children were moved into permanent housing; so too 515 chronically homeless individuals.

Lastly, a decrease in rental units keeps the vacancies low. Rental vacancies in the Portland Metro area in the 1st quarter of 2009 was 3.8% while the rate for the state was 6.2%. In 2005 the vacancy rate was 9.7 for Portland Metro area.

The city made a bargain that it would keep the floor at 8,286 for NNL (0 - 60% of MFI) units. The city failed. The fact that the central city might in the future regain those units is immaterial.

The city has failed to have a balanced housing development in the central city resulting in unaffordable home ownership that outstripped rentals across the range of affordability..

This failure exacerbates the growing divide in the central city, especially downtown, between haves and haves not. It forces workers who might otherwise live closer to work to seek affordable housing outside the central city.

The city, and that includes PdC, in effect merely sits on the sidelines watching and, after the fact, issues a report every three years.